1. The Civil 1st. Appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 dated 15.1.2009 (for short "Act") in petition titled Zahida Hassan Najar and another v. Executive Engineer Maintenance and Rural Electrification Division Pulwama (herein after referred to as M&RE Div.) whereby the Commissioner under the Act has awarded an amount of Rs.2,26,044.00 in favour of petitioners as dependants of Arshid Ahamad Najar deceased workman. The facts discernible from the record are that Sh. Arshid Ahamad Najar working as a Casual Labour on the monthly wages of Rs. 2100/- in M & RE Div. on 3.11.2007, met with an accident while deceased was assisting the field staff of the said M&RE Div. in stabilizing LT line at Jan Mohalla Shopian. The deceased fell down from an electric poll, resulting in the serious injuries to the deceased. The deceased was rushed to Sub-Division Hospital Shopian wherefrom the deceased was referred to SKIMS Soura . The deceased breathed his last on way to the Medical Institute Soura. 2. The dependants of the deceased workman filed a claim petition on 10.12.2007 in the prescribed format before the Commissioner Workmens Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner Pulwama). The petition was opposed by the appellant on the grounds that the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner cum Secretary Electric Department had not been made a party and that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the respondents before filing the claim petition. The petition was said to have been filed in absence of notice in terms of Section 10 of Workmens Compensation Act. The respondent further pleaded that the verification/certificate required under Section 22 of the Act had not been appended to the petition and that the petition for this ground also was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a Casual Labourer and thus not workman with the meaning of Workmens Compensation Act and that the petitioners had failed to incorporate necessary particulars in the petition. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a Casual Labourer and thus not workman with the meaning of Workmens Compensation Act and that the petitioners had failed to incorporate necessary particulars in the petition. The other ground urged to oppose the claim petition was that the deceased was guilty of negligence and had contributed to the accident; that the deceased was to perform the duties in Assistant Executive Engineers Office and the deceased disobeying the orders of the Assistant Executive Engineer of his own, prompted by his father Ghulam Hassan Najar Inspector in Electric Department, went to assist the field staff for repair of the electric line; that Sh. Ghulam Hassan Najar did not relieve the deceased pursuant to the transfer order and retained the deceased in Sub-Division thus making himself and his son equally responsible for the fatal accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased had not passed away because of electric shock but due to a slip from the ladder used to climb the electric poll. 3. The Commissioner under the Act after going through the record and hearing Counsel for the parties accepted the petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 2.26.044.00 as compensation the Act to the dependants of the deceased. 4. The order of Commissioner under the Act awarding compensation to the dependants of the deceased, is assailed in the appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is not passed on any cogent ground; that the Commissioner under the Act has failed to frame issues in the matter and arrive at a conclusion whether the accident took place during the performance of the legal duty, by the deceased. It is pleaded that as the deceased had willfully disobeyed the order of Assistant Executive Engineer, the dependants of the deceased were dis-entitled from compensation in terms of section 3 Proviso (b) (ii) of the Act. The reliance placed by the Commissioner under the Act on the documents produced by the dependants is said to be misplaced in as much as the documents were not proved in accordance with law and thus not admissible. The Commissioner under the Act, it is pleaded, has not satisfied himself whether the Act was applicable in the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner under the Act, it is pleaded, has not satisfied himself whether the Act was applicable in the circumstances of the case. The appellant also questions the quantum of compensation and maintainability of the petition in view of claim petition having been presented by a person, other than the dependants of the deceased workman. 5. Heard. The main plank of the appellants case to question impugned order is that the Commissioner having failed to frame issues, identified the points of controversy had in-effect deprived the appellants of right to substantiate their case. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that in terms of Section 23 of the Act the Commissioner under the Act is clothed with all the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, to be deemed to be a Civil Court, and required to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure while dealing with the petition for compensation. It is stated that the Commissioner under the Act was bound to go through the petition and reply/objections and thereafter frame issues and provide the parties a fair chance to substantiate their respective stands. The Commissioner under the Act by not framing issues is said to have failed to crystallize the controversy between the parties and thus deprived the appellant of an opportunity to focus and substantiate the points raised in opposition to the claim petition. It is argued that the Commissioner under the Act by disposing of the claim petition without settling the issues has violated the mandate of law and that the impugned order on this ground alone was liable to be set aside. There can be no disagreement with the arguments advanced by Ld.Counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner under the Act has powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and that while dealing with a claim petition for compensation is required to follow the procedure laid down under the Code. However, it is well settled law that nature of proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act is not analogous to a suit before the Civil Court. Independent of Code of Civil Procedure framing of issue is compulsory in terms of Rule 28 of the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 . However failure to settle the issues is not to result in retrial. Independent of Code of Civil Procedure framing of issue is compulsory in terms of Rule 28 of the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 . However failure to settle the issues is not to result in retrial. It needs no emphasis that framing of issues is aimed at concretizing the controversy between parties so that the Court/adjudicatory authority as also the parties before it have clear idea about the issues involved and the parties are in a better position to understand the areas of dispute and accordingly project their case. If Court/ adjudicating authority as well as the parties are found to have been all along aware of their disputes and projected their case well conscious of the controversy, failure to settle the issues is not fatal and does not vitiate the trial. Even in a civil suit where the Court as well as parties are aware of the real controversy go to the trial fully conscious of the disputes failure to frame issues has been held not to vitiate the trial or warrant setting aside of the judgement /order. It has been held in AIR 1992 ACJ 715: That the order of Commissioner under the Act would not be vitiated because of non framing of the issues unless the same has caused prejudice to the effected party and that the rule 28 is directory and not mandatory in nature. 6. It would be advantageous to reproduce the following observation made by the Court: The requirement of framing issues being a part of procedural law, it is worthwhile to remember that procedure after all is a handmaid of justice and is not a weapon to obstruct its free flow. This apart, the requirement of framing issues being to enable the parties to know the points on which there is a contest and to enable them to bring materials on record, to satisfy the court about the soundness of the contentions advanced, by each of them, it would meet the requirement of law and the intention of the legislature if, even without issues having been framed, parties have understood the case of each other and, have led evidence in support of their respective cases. The consequences which follow from, not construing the requirement of framing issues as mandatory are, therefore, such which do not obstruct the free flow of justice. The consequences which follow from, not construing the requirement of framing issues as mandatory are, therefore, such which do not obstruct the free flow of justice. The contrary view would, however, have the undesired effect of sacrificing the substance at the alter of form. The intention of the legislature behind the requirement of framing issues being to put the parties on notice about the case of the other-wise, the rendering of the proceeding as invalid due to non-framing of issues despite the parties having known the case of the other side and having led evidence either in support of their cases or in rebuttal of the case of the other wise would, be undesirable and not one which was intended, by the legislature..... 7. In the present case as is evident from the record the parties went to trial fully aware of the controversy involved and their respective stand and no prejudice was caused to either of the parties or appellant in particular by failure of the Commissioner under the Act to settle the issues. 8. The argument emphasizing failure of the dependants to serve notice of the accident in terms of Section 10 of the Act is equally specious and does not help appellant to assail the impugned order. It is pertinent to point out that the accident which resulted in death to the work man took place in presence and to the knowledge of subordinates of the respondent. The deceased was shifted from the place of accident to the hospital by the officials subordinate to the respondent and accident as also subsequent death was reported by the Junior Engineer of the M&RE Department posted at Shopian. The Assistant Executive Engineer in-turn informed the respondent regarding the accident. The deceased workman at the time of fatal accident was working on LT ine laid by the appellant under the control and supervision of employees /subordinates of the appellant. The case squarely fell within Section 10 Proviso IV (a). In the circumstances failure on the part of dependants to issue notice under and in the manner provided under Section 10 of the Act does not vitiate proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act or have negative fall out for the claim petition. 9. The case squarely fell within Section 10 Proviso IV (a). In the circumstances failure on the part of dependants to issue notice under and in the manner provided under Section 10 of the Act does not vitiate proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act or have negative fall out for the claim petition. 9. The contention that the Commissioner under the Act, did not consider the question of maintainability is a veiled attempt to question status of deceased as "Workman" within the meaning of the Act. It is true that the deceased was a casual worker paid an amount of Rs. 2100/- P.M; but to exclude a person or his dependants from the category of "Workman" it is not enough to show that the person was a "Casual Worker". It is further to be shown that the person is /was not engaged in the trade or business of the employee. In the instant case the deceased though a Casual Worker was engaged in the business of the employer. 10. The plea raised that the deceased workman was responsible for the accident or that the deceased workman had while assisting the field staff in restoration of LT line acted negligently does not find support from the official record. The officers subordinate to the respondent while reporting the accident to the respondent did not complain that the deceased workman had disobeyed the orders of Assistant Executive Engineer or that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased workman. 11. It is important to note that the deceased workman was assisting the field staff of the appellant and thus working to set right a fault in LT line under control and supervision of employees of appellants. The question of his having on his own gone to make repairs thus does not arise. The appellant has to realize that it was not a solo operation of the deceased workman, but a joint operation undertaken with other employees. 12. The Commissioner while making the order impugned in the appeal has made a thorough and elaborate discussion of the objections raised by the appellant in opposition to the claim petition and on the basis of record made available to the Commissioner under the Act rejected the stand taken by the appellant for cogent and convincing reasons. The objection regarding quantum of the objections also is devoid of any force. The objection regarding quantum of the objections also is devoid of any force. The Commissioner under the Act has worked-out the compensation strictly in accordance with Section 4 of the Act read with schedule IV appended thereto. Thus the argument of Learned Counsel for the petitioners that awarded amount is excessive is without any force. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the order dated 15.2.2009 of Commissioner under the Act awarding an amount of Rs.2,26,044.00 is held to be in strict conformity with law and not to suffer from any legal infirmity as would call for any interference. The appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.